|
I think what would help Kerry most right now is if he shifted focus slightly from what's happening in Iraq - and went head to head with Bush on what's happening with the ecconomy. After all Bush is the only President in the last 150 years or so to end a term in office with less Jobs produced than when he went in. (900,000 to be exact at the last count). How you turn a three trillion dollar surplus into a trillion dollar deficit in one term is something else that is at least worth looking over. (Well we know what happend really - he gave most of it away to his rich buddies). But besides that and besides some of the shouting that that might inspire, what people really do want to hear about isn't just Iraq (after all the news isn't all good) they want to hear how each candidate will tackle domestic matters, like jobs, crime the ecconomy - and yes how he will fight the real war on terrorism, which isn't in Iraq (and never was) but at home within the borders of the USA. Kerry could still win out here - because he has barely set out his agenda yet for any of these. All he seems to keep saying is no to the war in Iraq - just like he did in Vietnam - and really I'm not sure if that's enough. While Bush may be weak on these areas, Kerry's views remain very unclear. It leaves people thinking (as they may have thought about other issues) that they are not at all certain where he stands.
He needs to set out his store on these issues fast - and stick to it - indeed he should have done this a long time ago. People like repetition. The more a politician repeats something, the more they get the impression that they really believe in what they are saying.
Call it consistency.
At least if no one knows where Kerry stands on domestic affairs, no one can accuse him of flipflopping. Unless he never says anything - in which case people might think he can't make up his mind.
It's all kind of f*cked up. I don't know why the democrats choose him in the first plalce. His advisors are just not on the ball either.
Why didn't they choose that young guy John Edwards? Seems a bit rough to me - but at least he has been consistent.
People will probably vote Bush not because he is a good President - but because they can work out where he is comming from on most issues. It doesn't matter that he has failed on the ecconomy, failed in Iraq, failed in Afganistan, faied in the war on terror (especially by fighing wars that have nothing to do with this) as at least even in his failure, he has at least been consistent.
(Lol, it probably has nothing to do with his record - at least he has always said the same things).
But one thing the debate showed is that when you do put him up unscripted against a half decent politician (which no-one denies Kerry is) how shabby by comparrision he really looks. (He did come out with some clever retorts the next day - but that was only after his script writers got on the ball for him again - and it was kind of a case of 'things I wish i could have said but didn't.' Still not very clever - and a bit looser like really). It is just a pity therefore that the democrats couldn't find a better candiadate than Kerry.
GJ
Last edited by raid517; Oct 1, 2004 at 10:16 PM.
|
they can't both be winning....
